State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Master Gaurav Jindal (Minor) vs Central Bank Of India on 3 June, 2011
2nd Bench
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO NO.3009-12, SECTOR 22-D, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No.1415 of 2008.
Date of Institution: 08.12.2008.
Date of Decision: 03.06.2011.
Master Gaurav Jindal (Minor) through his Father and Natural Guardian Sh.
Ramesh Jindal, (now major), R/o H.No.167, Block-B, Sector-2, Mandi
Gobindgarh (District Fatehgarh Sahib).
.....Appellant.
Versus
1. Central Bank of India, Mandi Gobindgarh (District Fatehgarh Sahib),
through its Branch Manager.
2. Branch Manager, Central Bank of India, Mandi Gobindgarh (District
Fatehgarh Sahib).
.....Respondents.
First Appeal against the order dated
12.11.2008 of the District Consumer
Disputes Redressal Forum, Fatehgarh
Sahib.
Before:-
Shri Inderjit Kaushik, Presiding Member.
Shri Baldev Singh Sekhon, Member.
Present:-
For the appellant : Sh. H.C. Arora, Advocate.
For the respondents : Sh. Mohinder Singh, Advocate.
INDERJIT KAUSHIK, PRESIDING MEMBER:-
This order will dispose of the following six appeals:-
i) First Appeal No.1415 of 2008 (Master Gaurav Jindal Vs Central Bank of India & Anr.),
ii) First Appeal No.1416 of 2008 (Baby Shikha Jindal Vs Central Bank of India & Anr.),
iii) First Appeal No.1417 of 2008 (Hanish Jindal Vs Central Bank of India & Anr.),
iv) First Appeal No.400 of 2009 (Central Bank of India Vs Master Gaurav Jindal), First Appeal No. 1415 of 2008 2
v) First Appeal No.401 of 2009 (Central Bank of India Vs Baby Shikha Jindal),
vi) First Appeal No.399 of 2009 (Central Bank of India Vs Hanish Jindal), All these appeals are directed against the same impugned order dated 12.11.2008 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Fatehgarh Sahib (in short "District Forum"). The facts are taken from 'First Appeal No. 1415 of 2008 (Master Gaurav Jindal Vs Central Bank of India & Anr.) and the parties would be referred by their status in this appeal.
2. Facts in brief are that Master Gaurav Jindal, appellant/complainant (in short, "the appellant") filed a complaint under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, "the Act") through his father and natural guardian Sh. Ramesh Jindal against the respondents, pleading that he was minor and his father being natural guardian deposited the amount in the "Money Multiplier Deposits Certificates" in his name and the same was for the use and benefit of the appellant, as detailed below:-
(i) A/c No. 41/239 dated 11.8.1999 for Rs.15,000/-, Maturity value on 11.11.2001 as Rs.18,528/- in the name of " Master Gaurav Jindal u/g Shri Ramesh Kumar Jindal and Shri Ramesh Kumar Jindal, payable to either or Survivor.
(ii) A/c No. 41/464 dated 19.11.1999 for Rs.15,000/-, Maturity value on 19.02.2003 as Rs.21,008/- in the name of " Master Gaurav Jindal (minor) u/g Shri Ramesh Kumar Jindal and Shri Ramesh Kumar Jindal, payable to either or Survivor.
(iii) A/c No. 40/806 dated 19.02.1999 for Rs.16,000/-, Maturity value on 19.05.2001 as Rs.20,202/- in the name of " Gaurav Jindal (minor) u/g Shri Ramesh Kumar Jindal and or Shri Ramesh Kumar Jindal, payable to either or Survivor.
(iv) A/c No. 40/337 dated 05.08.1998 for Rs.20,000/-, Maturity value on 05.11.2000 as Rs.25,530/- in the name of " Master Gaurav Jindal First Appeal No. 1415 of 2008 3 (minor) u/g Shri Ramesh Kumar Jindal and Shri Ramesh Kumar Jindal, payable to either or Survivor.
(v) A/c No. 41/151 dated 19.06.1999 for Rs.20,000/-, Maturity value on 19.09.2001 as Rs.24,704/- in the name of " Master Gaurav Jindal u/g Shri Ramesh Kumar Jindal and Shri Ramesh Kumar Jindal, payable to either or Survivor.
(vi) A/c No. 48/652 dated 19.11.1998 for Rs.15,000/-, Maturity value on 19.02.2001 as Rs.19,148/- in the name of " Master Gaurav Jindal u/g Shri Ramesh Kumar Jindal and Shri Ramesh Kumar Jindal, payable to either or Survivor.
3. In the month of January, 2008, father and natural guardian of the appellant Sh. Ramesh Kumar Jindal called upon respondent no.2 to make the payment of the above mentioned term deposits, but respondent no.2 informed that the above deposits had been set off in the year 2001 against the outstanding liability in the account of Firms "M/s Ami Chand & Kishori Lal"
and/or "M/s Ramesh Jindal and Company", but no details were given and under what authority, said deposits were set off
4. M/s Ami Chand & Kishori Lal is a sole proprietorship firm of Sanjeev Kumar and father of the appellant was only a guarantor to the loan availed by the said firm. In another firm 'M/s Ramesh Kumar Jindal & Company', the father of the appellant Sh. Ramesh Kumar Jindal is proprietor of that firm and also one of the guarantors, but respondent no.2 exceeded its jurisdiction and authority and set off the amount of deposit and that too without issuing any notice or giving prior information to the appellant or even to Sh. Ramesh Kumar Jindal, nor got any authorization from the appellant or his father for that purpose. Thus, the action of respondent no.2 in adjusting the proceeds of the above deposits by way of set off against the liability of business firms above mentioned, is illegal and unauthorized and amounts to mis-appropriation of deposits of the appellant and respondent no.2 and other First Appeal No. 1415 of 2008 4 concerned officers of respondent no.1 are liable for criminal action under the Indian Penal Code.
5. At the time of one time settlement of the amount of the firm M/s Ramesh Jindal & Company in September, 2007, respondent no.2 never intimated the father of the appellant about the outstanding liability of 'M/s Ramesh Jindal & Company' or that of 'M/s Ami Chand & Kishori Lal'. The statement of accounts show that certain amounts have been credited in those accounts on 31.03.2001 which appear to include the amounts of some of the "Money Multiplier Deposit Certificates" of the appellant also. A legal notice dated 28.02.2008 was served through speed post on 28.02.2008, asking respondent no.2 to make payment of the above mentioned Money Multiplier Deposit Certificates along with interest @ 18% p.a., but no reply was received. There is deficiency in service on the part of the respondents and the bank deposits kept in the name of the minor could not be withdrawn even by the legal guardian without giving a certificate that the amount sought to be withdrawn, would be used exclusively for the benefit of the minor. The action of the respondent is without any authority of law. Father of the appellant and natural guardian Sh. Ramesh Kumar Jindal has filed an affidavit, stating that till January, 2008, he was never informed by the respondents that the amounts lying in the fixed deposit certificates in the name of the appellant had been appropriated by the respondents in other loan account under 'one time settlement', and prayed that the respondents be directed to make the payment of the above "Money Multiplier Deposit Certificates" aggregating to Rs.1,09,972/- along with interest @ 18% p.a. and to pay costs including counsel fee amounting to Rs.13,000/- and exemplary compensation of Rs.1.00 lac.
6. In the reply filed on behalf of the respondents no.1 & 2, preliminary objections were taken that the complaint is not maintainable and is hopelessly time barred. The Dispute between the parties is of civil nature and the present complaint is nothing, but an abuse of process of the court. First Appeal No. 1415 of 2008 5 The appellant has not come to the court with clean hands and has concealed true facts.
7. The true facts are that the appellant was holding a Joint Hindu Family with his father Sh. Ramesh Kumar Jindal and they are joint in mess and residence and father of the appellant is sole proprietor of firm M/s Ramesh Kumar Jindal & Company, G.T. Road, Mandi Gobindgarh and he availed a Cash Credit (Book Debt) Limit of Rs.9,50,000/- from respondent no.1 and to secure the repayment of the said cash credit facility, the father of the appellant furnished his personal guarantee and also equitably mortgaged his residential house property by depositing the original title deed with the bank. Sh. Sanjeev Kumar, Rajeev Kumar, Smt. Pushpa Rani, Smt. Sarita Rani, Smt. Dolly and Sh. Manu Jindal also stood as guarantors in the said cash credit limit and also furnished collateral securities of their immovable properties and deposited original title deeds with the intention to create equitable mortgage of their properties in favour of the bank. Sh. Ramesh Kumar Jindal being the principal borrower also executed various security documents with the bank. After availing the said Cash Credit (Book Debt) facility, the principal borrower and the guarantors willfully committed defaults and failed to observe the financial discipline and the account became highly bad and irregular. Vide letters dated 03.06.2000 and 18.09.2000, the father of the appellant undertook to pay the dues of the bank and sought time to adjust the cash credit limit account, but failed to do so.
8. The firm M/s Ami Chand Kishori Lal (Sole Proprietor Sh. Sanjeev Kumar) also availed Cash Credit (Book Debt) Limit of Rs.9,50,000/- from respondent no.1 bank and to secure the repayment of the said cash facility, the proprietor Sh. Sanjeev Kumar furnished his personal guarantee and also equitably mortgaged his residential house property by depositing original title deed and Sh. Ramesh Kumar Jindal stood as one of the guarantors and furnished collateral securities of his immovable properties/residential house and deposited original title deeds with the First Appeal No. 1415 of 2008 6 intention to create equitable mortgage of his house in favour of the bank, but after availing the said cash credit limit facility, the principal borrower and the guarantors committed willful defaults and failed to observe the financial discipline and their account became irregular and vide letters dated 03.06.2000 and 18.09.2000, Sh. Ramesh Kumar Jindal undertook to pay the bank dues and sought time to adjust the cash credit limit account, but without any effect.
9. As per mutual understanding between the parties and under instructions of Sh. Ramesh Kumar Jindal, respondent bank on 31.03.2001 set off and deposited the amount of "Money Multiplier Deposits Certificates" of the appellant towards the liabilities of Sh. Ramesh Kumar Jindal in both the above cash credit limit accounts, as the said certificates were payable to 'either or survivor' and the amount of these deposit certificates was validly adjusted and there is no deficiency in service on the part of the respondent bank.
10. After setting off and adjusting the amount of the said certificates, the respondent bank filed separate recovery suits against both the above firms along with its proprietors and guarantors before the Debt Recovery Tribunal at Chandigarh. True copies of the cash credit limit accounts were also produced before the Debt Recovery Tribunal and Sh. Ramesh Kumar Jindal never raised any objection with regard to adjustments of the amount of the certificates towards his liabilities of the bank and these deposit certificates were also got issued from the bank by Sh. Ramesh Kumar Jindal. The suits filed before the Debt Recovery Tribunal were decided in favour of the respondent bank. Thereafter, to save the auction of his property in execution proceedings and knowing well that the amount of said certificates has already been adjusted towards his liabilities, father of the appellant approached the bank authorities for making payment of decreetal amount under 'one time settlement' scheme and sought the relief of concessions from the bank, to which the bank agreed and the accounts were adjusted as per the settlement. First Appeal No. 1415 of 2008 7 The said facts were known to the appellant, his father Sh. Ramesh Kumar Jindal and other family members. The compliant is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties, as said Ramesh Kumar Jindal has not been made party and the present complaint has been filed in connivance with Ramesh Kumar Jindal and Sanjeev Kumar, who is also their family member. There is no cause of action and the complaint is false and frivolous and is liable to be dismissed with compensatory costs. On merits, allegations were denied and similar pleas were repeated and it was prayed that the complaint may be dismissed.
11. Rejoinder was filed in which, facts pleaded in the complaint were reiterated and that of the written reply were denied.
12. Parties led evidence in support of their respective contentions by way of affidavits and documents.
13. After going through the documents and material placed on file and after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the learned District Forum observed that the that the date of birth of the appellant is 26.06.1990 and he was minor on 31.03.2001 and the date of birth of Hanish Jindal is 07.10.1985 and he was also minor on 31.03.2011 and any act which is derogatory to the interest of the minor, is not enforceable. No permission has been taken from the court regarding withdrawal of the amount of the minors and thereafter, adjustment of the said amount in the name of some other person and the adjustment is not valid nor legal and the right of the minor can be challenged from the date of knowledge i.e. January, 2008. Complainant Baby Shikha Jindal was born on 30.05.1982 and she became major on 30.05.2000 and there is no document regarding the consent from Shikha Jindal for withdrawal of her amount. Oral consent of the appellant is meaningless, and allowed the complaint, directing the respondents to refund the amount of "Money Multiplier Deposit Certificates" to the appellant within one month and also to pay Rs.20,000/- to each appellant as compensation for mental harassment and Rs.1000/- as litigation expenses. First Appeal No. 1415 of 2008 8
14. Aggrieved by the impugned order dated 12.11.2008, the appellant has come up in the present appeal with a prayer that interest @ 18% p.a. may be awarded and the amount of compensation and costs may be enhanced.
15. Whereas the respondent has filed cross appeal i.e. First Appeal No.400 of 2009 (Central Bank of India Vs Master Gaurav Jindal), with a prayer that the impugned order dated 12.11.2008 may be set aside.
16. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, perused the record of the District Forum and heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties.
17. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the appellant has filed this appeal for enhancement of the compensation and costs. The District Forum has not awarded any interest and the cost of litigation awarded is also inadequate. The fixed deposits remained with the respondents for eight years and the appellant is entitled to interest @ 18% p.a.
18. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents contended that the cash credit limit was given to two firms i.e. 'M/s Ramesh Kumar Jindal' and 'M/s Ami Chand & Kishori Lal' of Rs.9,50,000/- each and the father of the appellant was guarantor as well as principal borrower, but the payments were not made in time and the account of the father of the appellant as well as of other firms became irregular and ultimately, in order to settle the accounts, 'one time settlement' was made and the amount of the said "Money Multiplier Deposit Certificates" was adjusted as the accounts could be operated being 'either or survivor' by the father of the appellant. For the remaining amount, the Debt Recovery Tribunal has passed the order in favour of the respondents and the same has been upheld by the Hon'ble High Court. It was further contended that the amount of said deposit certificates was adjusted in 2001, whereas the present complaint was filed in 2008 and is hopelessly time barred. The statements of account were given to the father of the appellant in January, 2002 before the Debt Recovery Tribunal and even if First Appeal No. 1415 of 2008 9 that date is considered as the date of knowledge, then also the complaint is time barred and the impugned order passed by the District Forum is liable to be set aside.
19. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have minutely examined the record.
20. Admittedly, "Money Multiplier Deposit Certificates" were deposited in the name of the appellant, who was minor. As per the District Forum, the date of birth of the appellant is 26.09.1990. By now, it is well settled that no act can be committed even by the natural guardian, if it is prejudicial to the interest of the minor. In case, the money deposited in the name of the minor is required for his/her welfare, even then the permission of the Guardian Judge is required before withdrawing the same and utilizing for the welfare of the minor, but in the present case, nothing such was done. The plea that the account was 'either or survivor' in the name of the appellant as well as of his father Sh. Ramesh Kumar Jindal, as such, the father of the appellant was competent to adjust his loan account against the said deposits, is not tenable in the eyes of law. Hon'ble Supreme Court in case "Anumti Vs Punjab National Bank", 2004(3)Consumer Law Today-598(SC), observed in Para No.12(relevant portion) as follows:-
"Whether the operation is by 'either or survivor' or 'former or survivor' can be effected only under the joint signatures of all persons entitled to operate the joint account. One of the joint account holders thus cannot unilaterally instruct the Bank not to honour cheques signed by the others, issue duplicate deposit receipt, premature repayment or loan against Fixed Deposit".
21. In view of the above law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the father of the appellant namely Sh. Ramesh Kumar Jindal had no authority to get the amount of the said deposit certificates adjusted. The cause of action arose to the appellant in 2008 when the appellant became major and the present complaint was also filed in the year 2008 and it cannot be said to be barred by time.
First Appeal No. 1415 of 2008 10
22. The appellant through this appeal has claimed interest @ 18% p.a. on the amount of deposit certificates, but it is also the settled preposition of law that once the compensation is awarded, the interest cannot be awarded. There is also no ground to enhance the amount of compensation and costs The District Forum has passed a detailed and well reasoned order supported by the law of the land and there is no ground to interfere with the same.
23. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the appellant-Master Gaurav Jindal is dismissed and the impugned order dated 12.11.2008 under appeal passed by the District Forum, is affirmed and upheld. No order as to costs. F.A. No.400 of 2009:-
24. In view of the discussion and findings given in F.A. No.1415 of 2008(Master Gaurav Jindal Vs Central Bank of India & Anr.), the First Appeal No.400 of 2009 (Central Bank of India Vs Master Gaurav Jindal) is dismissed and the impugned order dated 12.11.2008 under appeal passed by the District Forum, is affirmed and upheld. No order as to costs.
25. The respondent-Bank in F.A. No.400 of 2009 had deposited an amount of Rs.10,500/- with this Commission at the time of filing of the appeal on 26.03.2009 and another sum of Rs.14,500/- vide receipt no.71 dated 17.04.2009. Both these amounts with interest accrued, if any, be remitted by the registry to the appellant-Master Gaurav Jindal by way of crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days under intimation to the learned District Forum and to the respondent-bank.
26. The remaining amount as per order of the District Forum shall be paid by the respondent-bank to the appellant-Master Gaurav Jindal, within two months from the receipt of copy of the order.
First Appeal No.1416 of 2008:-
27. Similarly in F.A. No.1416 of 2008 (Baby Shikha Jindal Vs Central Bank of India & Anr.), the appellant Baby Shikha Jindal was born on 30.05.1982 and she being minor, her father Sh. Ramesh Jindal being natural First Appeal No. 1415 of 2008 11 guardian deposited the amount in the "Money Multiplier Deposits Certificates"
in her name and the same was for the use and benefit of the appellant, as detailed below:-
(i) A/c No. 41/465 dated 19.11.1999 for Rs.15,000/-, Maturity value on 19.02.2003 as Rs.21,008/- in the name of " Baby Shikha Jindal (M) u/g Shri Ramesh Jindal and Shri Ramesh Jindal, payable to (Either or Survivor).
(ii) A/c No. 40/653 dated 19.11.1998 for Rs.15,000/-, Maturity value on 19.02.2001 as Rs.19,148/- in the name of " Shikha Jindal d/o Shri Ramesh Jindal and Shri Ramesh Jindal, payable to (Either or Survivor).
(iii) A/c No. 40/533 dated 11.9.1998 for Rs.15,000/-, Maturity value on 11.12.2000 as Rs.19,147/- in the name of "Shikha Jindal d/o Shri Ramesh Jindal and Shri Ramesh Jindal, payable to (Either or Survivor).
(iv) A/c No. 41/150 dated 19.6.1999 for Rs.20,000/-, Maturity value on 19.09.2001 as Rs.24,704/- in the name of " Shikha Jindal u/g Shri Ramesh Jindal and Shri Ramesh Jindal, payable to either or Survivor.
(v) A/c No. 40/804 dated 19.2.1999 for Rs.16,000/-, Maturity value on 19.05.2001 as Rs.20,202/- in the name of " Shikha Jindal u/g Shri Ramesh Jindal and Shri Ramesh Jindal, payable to either or Survivor.
28. In the month of January 2008, when appellant called upon respondent no.2 to make the payment of the above deposit certificates, respondent no.2 informed that the said amount was set off in the year 2001 against the outstanding liability in the account of Firms "M/s Ami Chand & Kishori Lal" or "M/s Ramesh Jindal and Company". Respondent no.2 had not given any detail of the loans and under what authority the above deposit certificates were set off. The firm M/s Ami Chand & Kishori Lal" is the sole proprietorship firm of Sh. Sanjeev Kumar and father of the appellant is only a guarantor. The other firm "M/s Ramesh Jindal and Company" the father of namely Sh. Ramesh Jindal is the proprietor of the firm and also one of the guarantors there of, but respondent no.2 by exceeding its jurisdiction and authority, set off the amount of deposit certificates without giving any notice or prior information to the appellant and even Sh. Ramesh Jindal had no authority for the purpose of setting off of the deposit certificates. First Appeal No. 1415 of 2008 12
29. The complaint was contested by the respondents by filing written reply.
30. In view of the discussion and findings given in F.A. No.1415 of 2008(Master Gaurav Jindal Vs Central Bank of India & Anr.), the First Appeal No.1416 of 2008 (Baby Shikha Jindal Vs Central Bank of India & Anr.), is dismissed and the impugned order dated 12.11.2008 under appeal passed by the District Forum, is affirmed and upheld. No order as to costs. F.A. No.401 of 2009:-
31. The date of birth of Baby Shikha Jindal is 30.05.1982 and she has become major on 30.5.2000. The respondent bank has not produced any document regarding the consent taken from appellant Shikha Jindal for withdrawal of her amount and for adjusting the same in the account of Sh. Ramesh Jindal. Moreover, the joint signatures of the appellant and her father were also required for making any withdrawal from the account of the appellant and to adjust any amount from her account.
32. In view of the discussion and findings given in F.A. No.1415 of 2008(Master Gaurav Jindal Vs Central Bank of India & Anr.), the First Appeal No.401 of 2009 (Central Bank of India Vs Baby Shikha Jindal) is dismissed and the impugned order dated 12.11.2008 under appeal passed by the District Forum, is affirmed and upheld. No order as to costs.
33. The respondent-Bank in F.A. No.401 of 2009 had deposited an amount of Rs.10,500/- with this Commission at the time of filing of the appeal on 26.03.2009 and another sum of Rs.14,500/- vide receipt no.69 dated 17.04.2009. Both these amounts with interest accrued, if any, be remitted by the registry to the appellant-Baby Shikha Jindal by way of crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days under intimation to the learned District Forum and to the respondent-bank.
34. The remaining amount as per order of the District Forum shall be paid by the respondent-bank to the appellant-Baby Shikha Jindal, within two months from the receipt of copy of the order.
First Appeal No. 1415 of 2008 13First Appeal No.1417 of 2008:-
35. Similarly in F.A. No.1417 of 2008 (Hanish Jindal Vs Central Bank of India & Anr.), the appellant Hanish Jindal was born on 07.10.1985 and he being minor, his father Sh. Ramesh Jindal being natural guardian deposited the amount in the "Money Multiplier Deposits Certificates" in his name and the same was for the use and benefit of the appellant, as detailed below:-
(i) A/c No. 40/386 dated 5.8.1998 for Rs.20,000/-, Maturity value on 05.11.2000 as Rs.25,530/- in the name of " Shri Hanish Jindal and Shri Ramesh Kumar Jindal, payable to either or Survivor.
(ii) A/c No. 41/149 dated 19/6/1999 for Rs.20,000/-, maturity value on 19.09.2001 as Rs.24,704/- in the name of "Master Hanish Jindal & Sh Ramesh Jindal, payable to either or survivor.
(iii) A/c No. 40/539 dated 11/9/1998 for Rs.15,000/-, maturity value on 11.12.2000 as Rs.19,147/- in the name of " Hanish Jindal son of Shri Ramesh Jindal, payable to either or survivor.
(iv) A/c No. 40/654 dated 19/11/1998 for Rs.17,000/-, maturity value on 19.2.2001 as Rs.21,701/- in the name of "Hanish Jindal and Shri Ramesh Kumar Jindal and or Shri Ramesh Jindal, payable to either or survivor.
(v) A/c No. 40/789 dated 09/2/1999 for Rs.20,000/-, maturity value on 09.05.2001 as Rs.25,253/- in the name of "Shri Hanish Jindal son of Shri Ramesh Jindal or Shri Ramesh Jindal, payable to either or survivor.
36. In the month of January 2008, when appellant called upon respondent no.2 to make the payment of the above deposit certificates, respondent no.2 informed that the said amount was set off in the year 2001 against the outstanding liability in the account of Firms "M/s Ami Chand & Kishori Lal" or "M/s Ramesh Jindal and Company". Respondent no.2 had not given any detail of the loans and under what authority the above deposit certificates were set off. The firm M/s Ami Chand & Kishori Lal" is the sole proprietorship firm of Sh. Sanjeev Kumar and father of the appellant is only a guarantor. The other firm "M/s Ramesh Jindal and Company" the father of namely Sh. Ramesh Jindal is the proprietor of the firm and also one of the guarantors there of, but respondent no.2 by exceeding its jurisdiction and authority, set off the amount of deposit certificates without giving any notice or First Appeal No. 1415 of 2008 14 prior information to the appellant and even Sh. Ramesh Jindal had no authority for the purpose of setting off of the deposit certificates.
37. The complaint was contested by the respondents by filing written reply.
38. In view of the discussion and findings given in F.A. No.1415 of 2008(Master Gaurav Jindal Vs Central Bank of India & Anr.), the First Appeal No.1417 of 2008(Hanish Jindal Vs Central Bank of India & Anr.), is dismissed and the impugned order dated 12.11.2008 under appeal passed by the District Forum, is affirmed and upheld. No order as to costs. F.A. No.399 of 2009:-
39. In view of the discussion and findings given in F.A. No.1415 of 2008(Master Gaurav Jindal Vs Central Bank of India & Anr.), the First Appeal No.399 of 2009 (Central Bank of India Vs Hanish Jindal) is dismissed and the impugned order dated 12.11.2008 under appeal passed by the District Forum, is affirmed and upheld. No order as to costs.
40. The respondent-Bank in F.A. No.401 of 2009 had deposited an amount of Rs.10,500/- with this Commission at the time of filing of the appeal on 26.03.2009 and another sum of Rs.14,500/- vide receipt no.70 dated 17.04.2009. Both these amounts with interest accrued, if any, be remitted by the registry to the appellant-Hanish Jindal by way of crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days under intimation to the learned District Forum and to the respondent-bank.
41. The remaining amount as per order of the District Forum shall be paid by the respondent-bank to the appellant-Hanish Jindal, within two months from the receipt of copy of the order.
42. Arguments in all these appeals were heard on 24.05.2011 and the orders were reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties.
43. The appeals could no be decided within the stipulated timeframe due to heavy pendency of Court cases.
First Appeal No. 1415 of 2008 15
44. Copy of this order be placed in First Appeal No.1416 of 2008 (Baby Shikha Jindal Vs Central Bank of India & Anr.), First Appeal No.1417 of 2008 (Hanish Jindal Vs Central Bank of India & Anr.), First Appeal No.400 of 2009 (Central Bank of India Vs Master Gaurav Jindal), First Appeal No.401 of 2009 (Central Bank of India Vs Baby Shikha Jindal), First Appeal No.399 of 2009 (Central Bank of India Vs Hanish Jindal), (Inderjit Kaushik) Presiding Member (Baldev Singh Sekhon) Member June 03, 2011.
(Gurmeet Singh)